This gets us back to the age old question of when is it un-feminist to ream out a woman for stuff like her clothing choices or how she chooses to assert her physical boundaries, and whether we're judging too harshly or by standards we wouldn't hold any man up to, and I'm sorry--what is the male equivalent of this outfit? Jeans and a Senor Frog polo? My question is, would a Hill staffer get away with that getup? And is she possibly dressing for the job she actually wants? (Bartender in a college town gastropub?)
Is this some form of protest over being held responsible for people thinking she should probably act and vote like the person she set herself out to be when she ran for office? Is she checking her phone for job offers that are somehow better than being a US Senator--a person with actual power to effect change if she felt so moved?
Am I being mean? Because something about her whole deal is just exceptionally vexxing to me, and I am not liking it.
2 comments:
It is vexing to me as well, and I am not comfortable calling her out on it, even though we sometimes call out weirdly dressed men (like tfg or Gaetz). I felt the same way when I looked at Kayleigh McWhatever, up there in her official capacity but dressed in little girl sundresses and stuff that looked like rompers and beach or play wear.
It makes me appreciate people like Rachel Maddow, with her plain blazers over simple non-masculine tops.
But I still feel like I should restrict expressing my annoyance except in specific contexts like the one you have provided. (Thanks.)
It's fraught because women are held to a different standard, and have their competence and professionalism called into question about things like how they look, dress, their tone of voice, etc. unfairly far too often. But I also don't think she's dressing this way unconscious of the optics--I wonder if she'd just rather we be talking about the length of her skirt, for example, than the five veteran advisers who just quit because they don't think she's listening.
Post a Comment